U.S. patent application number 11/889363 was filed with the patent office on 2008-10-23 for automated method and system for a gaming opportunity.
This patent application is currently assigned to Technology Assurance Laboratory, Inc.. Invention is credited to Leo Chu, Taro Ito, Bart A. Lewin.
Application Number | 20080261701 11/889363 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 39872778 |
Filed Date | 2008-10-23 |
United States Patent
Application |
20080261701 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Lewin; Bart A. ; et
al. |
October 23, 2008 |
Automated method and system for a gaming opportunity
Abstract
A method and system of screening a player for a gaming
opportunity, including obtaining disparate data of a player from a
plurality of data sources, weighting the player data based on at
least one business rule, and applying the weighted player data to
at least one decision model to generate at least one composite
score indicative of a scale of eligibility of the player for the
gaming opportunity.
Inventors: |
Lewin; Bart A.; (Woodland
Hills, CA) ; Ito; Taro; (Redondo Beach, CA) ;
Chu; Leo; (Beverly Hills, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON
DC
20004
US
|
Assignee: |
Technology Assurance Laboratory,
Inc.
Inglewood
CA
|
Family ID: |
39872778 |
Appl. No.: |
11/889363 |
Filed: |
August 13, 2007 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
60907825 |
Apr 18, 2007 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
463/43 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G07F 17/3237 20130101;
G07F 17/3241 20130101; G07F 17/32 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
463/43 |
International
Class: |
A63F 9/24 20060101
A63F009/24 |
Claims
1. A method of screening a player for a gaming opportunity,
comprising the steps of: obtaining disparate data of a player from
a plurality of data sources; weighting the player data based on at
least one business rule; and applying the weighted player data to
at least one decision model to generate at least one composite
score indicative of a scale of eligibility of the player for the
gaming opportunity.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the player data obtained from the
data sources may be changed manually.
3. The method of claim 1, further including the step of randomly
selecting the player for a manual screening process.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of validating
the player data.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of validating the player
data includes the step of verifying the player data using at least
one independent data source.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes
jurisdictional requirements.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes age
requirements of the player.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes an
exclusion list.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes a
player skill level requirement.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes a
cost of annoyance.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes a
history of use by the player of impermissible playing methods.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the player data include location
information of the player.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the player location information
is obtained from at least one of an IP address, a Media Access
Control (MAC) address, a serial number of a device from which the
player requested access, reverse email directories, and gaming
facility databases.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein weights for the weighting is
adjustable.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the player data are weighted
based on age of the player data.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the player data are weighted
based on accuracy.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein regulatory criteria are given
the greatest weight.
18. The method of claim 1, wherein the player data are weighted
based on comparison to a range of values observed in other
players.
19. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of weighting includes
nested business rules to weight the player data.
20. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one decision model
includes a feedback loop.
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one decision model
includes predictive statistical modeling.
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one decision model
includes an adaptive algorithm.
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the adaptive algorithm is at
least one of a logical multiple regression, a neural network, a
Bayesian classification, a variance analysis, and a classification
tree.
24. The method of claim 1, wherein the composite score includes at
least one base score.
25. The method of claim 24, wherein the base score is adjustable
based on any one of (a) weight of the player data used to calculate
the base score, (b) accuracy of the player data used to calculate
the base score, (c) age of the player data used to calculate the
base score, and (d) completeness of the player data used to
calculate the base score.
26. The method of claim 1, wherein the composite score includes an
averaged base score.
27. The method of claim 26, wherein at least one composite score is
calculated as an average of at least two base scores.
28. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of
indicating eligibility of the player for the gaming opportunity if
the composite score is within a first range.
29. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of
indicating ineligibility of the player for the gaming opportunity
if the composite score is within a second range.
30. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of
indicating conditional eligibility of the player for the gaming
opportunity if the composite score is above a first threshold but
below a second threshold.
31. The method of claim 30, wherein the first and second thresholds
are adjustable.
32. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of
determining a cost of annoyance when the composite score is within
a second range.
33. The method of claim 32, wherein the step of determining the
cost of annoyance includes analyzing any one of a cost of allowing
the player to play, a cost of not allowing the player to play, and
probability of losing future revenue from the player.
34. The method of claim 32, wherein the step of determining the
cost of annoyance is based on estimated player revenue, probability
that the player will not leave, cost of allowing the player to
play, and probability that the player is ineligible.
35. The method of claim 34, wherein the estimated player revenue is
calculated based on a theoretical win per game and number of times
an average player plays a game.
36. The method of claim 32, further comprising the step of
indicating eligibility of the player for the gaming opportunity if
the cost of annoyance is within a third range.
37. The method of claim 32, further comprising the step of
indicating ineligibility of the player for the gaming opportunity
if the cost of annoyance is within a fourth range.
38. The method of claim 32, further comprising the step of manually
screening the player for eligibility of the gaming opportunity if
the cost of annoyance is between a third and fourth threshold.
39. The method of claim 32, wherein the step of determining the
cost of annoyance includes subtracting the cost of a false positive
from the revenue lost from not allowing the player to play.
40. The method of claim 32, wherein the step of determining the
cost of annoyance includes subtracting cost of a false negative
from the cost of allowing the player to play.
41. The method of claim 30, wherein the conditional eligibility
includes an obligation to receive coaching during play.
42. The method of claim 41, wherein coaching is provided according
to at least one gaming strategy.
43. The method of claim 41, wherein coaching is provided if the
player has less than a predetermined credit rating.
44. The method of claim 41, wherein coaching is provided if the
player is below a predetermined level of playing experience.
45. The method of claim 41, wherein coaching is provided from a
compilation of tips from at least one gaming celebrity.
46. The method of claim 30, wherein the conditional eligibility
includes an obligation for the player to play according to at least
one predetermined gaming strategy.
47. The method of claim 46, wherein the at least one predetermined
gaming strategy is required if the player is below a predetermined
level of playing experience.
48. The method of claim 46, further comprising the step of
monitoring the player for compliance with the at least one
predetermined gaming strategy.
49. The method of claim 28, wherein the player with the composite
score within the first range is allowed to play in an automated
playing mode.
50. The method of claim 46, wherein the player playing according to
the at least one predetermined gaming strategy is allowed to play
in an automated playing mode.
51. A system for screening a player for a gaming opportunity,
comprising: a server configured to communicate with a player
device, the server including a data collection module to obtain
disparate data of the player from a plurality of data sources, a
rules module to weight the player data based on at least one
business rule, and a decision module to apply the weighted player
data to at least one decision model to generate at least one
composite score indicative of a scale of eligibility of the player
for the gaming opportunity.
52. A computer program product comprising computer readable medium
having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when
executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform a method of
screening a player for a gaming opportunity comprising the steps
of: obtaining disparate data of a player from a plurality of data
sources; weighting the player data based on at least one business
rule; and applying the weighted player data to at least one
decision model to generate at least one composite score indicative
of a scale of eligibility of the player for the gaming opportunity.
Description
[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional
Application Ser. No. 60/907,825, filed on Apr. 18, 2007, which is
expressly incorporated by reference herein.
RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0002] This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser.
Nos. [Attorney Docket Nos. 068042-5003 and 068042-5004], which also
claim the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No.
60/907,825.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0003] The present invention relates to a method and system for
electronic gaming, and in particular, to multiple jurisdiction
electronic gaming with remote access capability.
DISCUSSION OF THE RELATED ART
[0004] Over the span of a few short years, advancements in computer
networks and communication technology have bridged the physical gap
between users. In particular, the Internet has gone from a highly
specialized quasi-public computer network used by a relatively
narrow group of individuals and institutions to a broadly based
worldwide web that touches upon the daily lives of hundreds of
millions, if not billions, of individuals, businesses and other
entities across the globe. The explosive growth of the Internet has
brought with it an equally expansive growth of its use for
exchanging and sharing information, providing services and
conducting commercial or business transactions. Business
transactions conducted over the Internet provide individuals across
the world the ability to shop for a wide variety of goods and
services, offered by countless different businesses and commercial
operations, merely through the use of a personal computer connected
to the Internet by way of a standard modem. The Internet, and to a
lesser extent intranet local area networks, have caused rapid
growth in the desire for various online gaming opportunities, from
role playing games (RPGs) in expansive virtual worlds to
competitive games pitting one player against another.
[0005] Gambling in the U.S. is controlled by federal and state laws
and regulations. Most countries throughout the world also have
regulations restricting gambling. Despite strict and heavy laws and
regulations, there are now at least 38 states with card rooms.
California, for example, has approximately 100 facilities with card
tables. Gaming facilities are also introducing electronic card game
tables. The electronic tables allow for electronic interaction
between the house and the players as well as electronic interaction
between players.
[0006] As briefly discussed above, gambling is a highly regulated
activity, as most governmental jurisdictions throughout the world
believe that, if not controlled, it can have detrimental effects on
society. The gating factor for many regulators is the degree of
skill involved in the game. Where less skill is required, (i.e.,
more chance than skill), such as with a wheel of fortune,
regulators generally feel more restriction is required. Where more
player skill is required to participate, regulators, though
cautious, are relatively less stringent. In many jurisdictions,
most card games are considered games of skill, not chance.
[0007] In California, a card gaming facility may charge a fee for
use of the table, but may not take a percentage of a pot.
Accordingly, in order to maximize profits, gaming facilities
attempt to maximize the number of players participating in the
game. This strategy generally holds true in other jurisdictions as
well. With revenues tied to the number of players, facilities need
ways to enable players to play even when enough players are not
physically present in the facility. Therefore, with the increased
usage of the Internet, and with the advent of sophisticated LAN
(i.e., local area network) or WAN (i.e., wide area network)
Intranets, the advantages of providing an efficient, reliable and
secure method for a gaming facility to allow players to participate
in a card game, locally or via remote access, may be desirable to
increase the number of players, thereby potentially increasing
house profits. Moreover, because such a system would not require
the player to be present at the card table, the player may be
elsewhere, perhaps eating a meal, enjoying a show, relaxing in
another lounge, etc., thereby increasing play time and player
enjoyment.
[0008] Online gaming with gambling elements, however, requires
strict and accurate ways to verify players' credit, the types of
games they can play, and especially their eligibility to play--many
times based on player age and location. Because of the highly
regulated environment and eligibility rules that vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, a need exists for a secure, timely,
dynamic credit checking, age verification, location verification,
account establishment system that detects ineligible players while
minimizing the risk of losing an eligible player and maximizes use
of the many variables that come into play when evaluating potential
players coming from multiple jurisdictions, ages, backgrounds,
experience levels and the like.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0009] Accordingly, the present invention is directed to a method
and system for electronic gaming, and in particular, to multiple
jurisdiction electronic gaming with remote access capability.
[0010] Embodiments of the invention provide a system and methods
for online gaming of card games and other games of skill, with
players able to play with each other while located in one or more
locations in one or more gaming jurisdictions. The present
invention provides a system and method for online gaming for
players physically located in one or more locations and/or within
one or more gaming jurisdictions via an Intranet or the Internet.
Exemplary embodiments include applying the system and method of the
present invention to electronic card games, such as poker, pai gow,
blackjack, and the like. The system can also be applied to other
games of skill without departing from the scope of the
invention.
[0011] One exemplary embodiment includes a system and method for a
gaming facility to evaluate a card player user in order to
facilitate a "cost of annoyance" informed decision as to whether
the facility will allow the player to establish a player's account
or participate in gaming activities at a particular point in time.
The decision may be based on dynamic house weighting factors
including, for example, the locale of the facility, the applicable
jurisdictional rules and regulations, the player's age, the
player's history, at least one of the player's credit ratings, the
time of day, the proposed period of play, and the like. According
to exemplary embodiments of the invention, a gaming facility may
have an automated credit checking system that calculates a cost of
annoyance calculation for prospective players, thereby preventing
the loss of preferred players due to false credit reports, errors,
oversights and the like. Depending on the classification of the
player, a player may be restricted to a particular play methodology
(rules) and strategy, or provided strategic coaching.
[0012] The invention reduces the manual processing used to
establish eligibility, thereby reducing processing costs, provides
more accurate results by increasing the number of factors
considered in determining eligibility, minimizes adverse effects
from false positive and negative results, and allows for
refinements in player classification that may result in
restrictions in activity (e.g., enforced strategy) and/or provision
of assistance (i.e., coaching) rather than simply denying service
to the player.
[0013] To achieve these and other advantages in accordance with the
purpose of the present invention, as embodied and broadly
described, a method of screening a player for a gaming opportunity
includes the steps of obtaining disparate data of a player from a
plurality of data sources, weighting the player data based on at
least one business rule, and applying the weighted player data to
at least one decision model to generate at least one composite
score indicative of a scale of eligibility of the player for the
gaming opportunity.
[0014] In another aspect, a system for screening a player for a
gaming opportunity includes a server configured to communicate with
a player device, the server including a data collection module to
obtain disparate data of the player from a plurality of data
sources, a rules module to weight the player data based on at least
one business rule, and a decision module to apply the weighted
player data to at least one decision model to generate at least one
composite score indicative of a scale of eligibility of the player
for the gaming opportunity.
[0015] In yet another aspect, a computer program product comprising
computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable
instructions that, when executed on a computer, causes the computer
to perform a method of screening a player for a gaming opportunity
includes the steps of obtaining disparate data of a player from a
plurality of data sources, weighting the player data based on at
least one business rule, and applying the weighted player data to
at least one decision model to generate at least one composite
score indicative of a scale of eligibility of the player for the
gaming opportunity.
[0016] It is to be understood that both the foregoing general
description and the following detailed description are exemplary
and explanatory and are intended to provide further explanation of
the invention as claimed.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0017] The accompanying drawings, which are included to provide a
further understanding of the invention and are incorporated in and
constitute a part of this specification, illustrate embodiments of
the invention and, together with the description, serve to explain
the principles of the invention. In the drawings:
[0018] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system architecture of the
present invention;
[0019] FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the process
for opening a new account in accordance with the present
invention;
[0020] FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account
verification process in accordance with the present invention;
[0021] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account
verification process incorporating a manual screening in accordance
with the present invention;
[0022] FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that determines
jurisdictional requirements and screens players against determined
jurisdictional requirements in accordance with the present
invention;
[0023] FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary embodiment using business
rules to screen players in accordance with the present
invention;
[0024] FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an exemplary embodiment using a
composite score to determine eligibility in accordance with the
present invention;
[0025] FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that calculates a
cost of annoyance in accordance with the present invention;
[0026] FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary embodiment for gaining
access to a gaming system in accordance with the present
invention;
[0027] FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a more
detailed view of a sign-on process in accordance with the present
invention;
[0028] FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary embodiment allowing a
player to "bank" a game in accordance with the present
invention;
[0029] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary embodiment providing
automated coaching tips to players in accordance with the present
invention;
[0030] FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that determines
whether a player is eligible for automated play in accordance with
the present invention; and
[0031] FIG. 14 illustrates an embodiment allowing automated player
play in accordance with the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS
[0032] Reference will now be made in detail to the exemplary
embodiments of the present invention, examples of which are
illustrated in the accompanying drawings.
[0033] The present invention is directed to a method and system for
electronic gaming, and in particular, to multiple jurisdiction
electronic gaming with remote access capability. In accordance with
the present invention, a system and methods for providing automated
account verification and approval, automated and manual player
eligibility screening, automated jurisdictional regulatory
compliance, automated player strategy enforcement and automated
player coaching for online card games are disclosed.
[0034] System Architecture
[0035] FIG. 1 illustrates an example of system architecture in
accordance with the present invention. Through a data
communications network (100), such as connections to the Internet
and/or through connections to LAN or WAN intranets, multiple
players may participate in a gaming opportunity, such as a card
game, locally or via remote access. The data communications
network, such as a connection to the Internet and/or Intranet, for
example, can be secure or non-secure. In the embodiment shown,
players in multiple jurisdictions and multiple locations within
jurisdictions are connected to each other via a data communications
channel. By allowing electronic access to a gaming opportunity,
such as a card game, for example, players may play in multiple
games, thereby increasing play time, player enjoyment, and gaming
facility house revenue.
[0036] Screening and/or play may be coordinated through one or more
servers (102) in a gaming center (120). The servers (102) may
include one or more database servers, application servers, and web
servers (not shown). The one or more servers (102) may be
centralized with all functions and data consolidated within the
gaming center (120). The one or more servers (102) may be
centralized in one location or may be on a distributed platform.
Other server configurations may be used without departing from the
scope of the invention. The gaming center (120) in accordance with
the present invention may also have a call center (104).
[0037] The system in accordance with the present invention includes
at least one gaming device through which a player gains access to a
gaming opportunity. For example, a gaming device may be computer
(106), player device (108), or portable gaming device (110).
However, other electronic devices may be used without departing
from the scope of the present invention. For example, players may
play on a computer (106), such as a personal computer (PC), a
player device (108), such as an electronic gaming table or gaming
kiosk, or a portable gaming device (110), such as a mobile phone or
personal digital assistant (PDA). Other electronic device that can
connect to the data communications network (100) may be used
without departing from the scope of the invention. As used herein,
these devices are collectively referred to as player devices. A
player device may connect to the one or more servers (102) via
Internet, Intranet, LAN, WAN, peer-to-peer, telephone, wireless
connections, such as satellite, cellular, wi-fi, and bluetooth, or
other communication channels including other interface devices
without departing from the scope of the invention. Accordingly,
players may be physically located in different gaming jurisdictions
(112, 114, 116) but still be connected to each other remotely.
Players may play on gaming terminals that are physically connected
to each other. Other embodiments of the invention may be used to
provide a system and method for online gaming of card game players
desiring to play with each other while located in one or more
gaming jurisdictions. The system architecture shown in FIG. 1 is
exemplary only and is not intended to be limited to what is
shown.
[0038] New Account Generation
[0039] FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the process
for opening a new account in accordance with the present invention.
In the embodiment shown, the player completes a new account
application (202). The server(s) (102) then checks the application
for valid player data entries (204). Examples of valid entry checks
include (a) ensuring that entries have been made in all required
fields, (b) ensuring that the contents of a field is in the proper
format (e.g., e-mail address contains text with no spaces, followed
by an "@" character, followed by text with no spaces, followed by a
period, followed by text with no spaces), and (c) verifying the
data entered using an independent source (e.g., address is verified
using a U.S. Postal Service database). The application is then
screened by one or more applicable eligibility algorithms (206).
Eligibility algorithms include, but are not limited to, checking
jurisdictional eligibility, age eligibility, regulatory or player
exclusion lists, and credit eligibility. In other embodiments,
players may also be screened for eligibility based on player skill
level, and/or any history of using impermissible playing methods
(e.g., counting cards).
[0040] In the embodiment shown, an application that has passed the
eligibility algorithm screening (206) is then screened by a cost of
annoyance algorithm (208). An exemplary embodiment of the cost of
annoyance algorithm is described below in reference to FIGS. 7A and
7B. If the new account application passes the annoyance algorithm
screening (208), the new account application is checked for
compliance with house rules (210). Non-limiting examples of house
rules include screening for a minimum cost of annoyance score
separately or in combination with other eligibility scores, which
are described in detail below. Other house rules may be used, and
may vary from establishment to establishment. For instance, a
player may be ruled out based solely on the fact that data entered
in the application was proved false through a third party data
verification process. Once the application is found to be in
compliance with house rules, the application is accepted (212).
[0041] In an alternative exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the
system of the present invention allows for manual reviews any time
an application does not pass an automated screening. For example,
if the application fails the eligibility algorithm screening (206),
the application is submitted for manual review (214). The
application may be screened by a manual reviewer for potential
subjective criteria that may not have been appreciated by the
algorithm screening process (i.e., 206, 208). Upon manual review,
the application may then be accepted (212) or rejected (218).
Likewise, if the application is found not to comply with house
rules, it may be manually reviewed (214). The manual reviewer then
decides whether to accept the application (212) or reject the
application (218).
[0042] Account Verification
[0043] FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account
verification process in accordance with the present invention. In
the embodiment shown, the system of the present invention
determines whether a player is a new player on the system or a
returning player (302). New players are invited to open a new
account (304). The system prompts the new player for
player-specific information, for example, through the new account
application process as described above in reference to FIG. 2
and/or submission of documentation, such as copies of government
identification and money transfer information. Other data may also
be used without departing from the scope of this invention. If the
player is an existing player, the player is prompted to verify
player data by providing personal information attributable only to
the player, such as passwords, the correct answer or answers to
personal information questions, biometric data, and the like
(306).
[0044] Once an existing player verifies player data (306) or a new
player completes a new account application (304) and is approved,
the player is automatically screened for compliance with
system-determined criteria (308). Non-limiting examples of data
used to screen the player for compliance with system-determined
criteria include credit reports, IP address of the player device
used to request a session or new application, the ID of the player
device used, gaming facility databases, reverse email directories,
and public records. Other information may be required and/or
provided without departing from the scope of the present invention.
Examples of screening criteria include, but are not limited to,
location, age, credit score, and whether the player provides the
correct answer or answers to personal information questions.
[0045] Screening may also include the collection of non-intrusive
data. Examples of non-intrusive data include credit reports,
information from public records, the IP address from which the
account request originated, the ID of the player device from which
the account request was sent, the system's internal database or
history, and reverse email directories. The player's Media Access
Control (MAC) address or device serial number may also be used. A
MAC address is assigned by a manufacturer for uniquely identifying
a particular physical network internet card used by a computer or
electronic device to access the Internet or Intranet. Existing
databases may be used to ascertain a country in which the device
was purchased to a certain degree of accuracy to help screen out
ineligible players located in foreign countries. Similarly, a
computer's serial number may be requested as part of the new player
application process, and may be obtained independently by the
screening application. The serial number may be looked up in a
database to verify a player's location and/or identify stolen
player accounts.
[0046] If the player does not pass the automatic screening, the
player account is manually screened (310). Manual screening is
discussed in further detail below with reference to FIG. 4.
Accounts that pass automatic screening are also randomly selected
for manual screening (312). If a manually screened account fails,
the account data is sent to a declined account feedback module
(314) and the player account is denied (316). If an account passes
screening, manual or automatic, the account data is sent to an
accepted account feedback module (318) and the account is accepted
(320). The embodiment described is exemplary only, and the
invention is not intended to be limited to what is shown. For
example, in other embodiments, screening may be only partially
automatic, or entirely manual.
[0047] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account
verification process incorporating a manual screening in accordance
with the present invention. In this embodiment, if the account or
account application fails to meet one or more account criteria
(e.g., the eligibility or the annoyance algorithm criteria), the
account or application is manually reviewed. A gaming facility may
choose to reject a player without manual screening depending on the
results of the automatic screening (e.g., the composite score is
above a particular threshold or the cost of annoyance is below a
particular threshold). An account that passes automatic screening
may also be randomly selected for manual screening.
[0048] In the embodiment shown, a score is received (402) and an
account is evaluated to determine whether manual review is desired
(404). Manual review may require live player contact, with the
player being asked to submit to a manual review (406). If the
player refuses a manual review, the account is rejected and service
is refused (408). If the player accepts, the documents provided to
show player age and location eligibility are manually reviewed
(410). If the player age and location information meet system
criteria, the manual reviewer approves the transaction (412). If
the application fails the document only manual screening, the
application may undergo manual information verification screening
(414). The gaming facility may determine the weight given to this
manual review. In this screening, the manual reviewer performs a
more detailed review of the account application information and has
the ability to modify the data entered by the automatic screening
process. Fields in the manually screened application may be
changed, updated, or augmented. Manual information verification
screening (414) includes consideration of one or more of a player's
oral arguments for why he or she should be eligible, manually
collected additional information (e.g., applicant's current
employment), the player's reputation among other establishments
(e.g., player skill level, use of prohibited play methodologies,
public behavior, the number of other players the player may
attract), and individual judgment as to the player's worthiness.
Manual information verification screening (414) may be performed by
one or more people experienced in gaming facility operations,
marketing or consumer credit. It may also involve reviewing of all
of the pieces of information thus far collected on a player (and
sometimes requesting additional information like current bank
statements), to determine whether the player is eligible.
[0049] If the player fails manual information verification
screening (414), the application or account is declined and service
is refused (408). If the application passes the manual information
verification, the system checks to see if data was modified (416).
If data was modified, the manually screened application is placed
back into the automated screening process (418). If no data was
modified, the transaction is allowed (412). As a final step,
whether the account is allowed or rejected, the screening results
are input into a model feedback process (420). The embodiment shown
is exemplary only. For example, in other embodiments, the house may
choose whether to accept or reject an account even if it passes
manual screening. In other embodiments, accounts may be selected
for the manual verification process without regard to the score.
This can be used to validate the results of and provide feedback to
automated processes.
[0050] Jurisdictional Screening
[0051] FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary embodiment in accordance
with the present invention where jurisdictional requirements are
determined and players are screened against the determined
jurisdictional requirements. In the embodiment shown, each of the
screening requirements must be satisfied or the player request is
denied, and the request and reason for denying the request are
logged. However, other variations may be implemented without
departing from the scope of the present invention.
[0052] As shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 5, when a
player requests entry (502), the system checks to see if the player
has an account (504). If the player account exists, the system
checks to see if the player is in an authorized jurisdiction (506).
The criteria for an authorized jurisdiction may be determined based
on the location of the gaming center (120). If the player is in an
authorized jurisdiction, the system of the present invention checks
to see if the player is in an authorized location within the
jurisdiction (508). The system also checks to see if the player is
utilizing an authorized device for accessing the system (510).
Authorized devices may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Non-limiting examples of authorized locations may include a gaming
facility, retail outlet, or even a home. Players may play on a
computer, an electronic gaming table, kiosk, a portable gaming
device, or any other electronic device that can connect to a data
communication network. Other non-limiting examples of gaming
devices include personal digital assistants (PDAs) and mobile
phones. The player device may connect to the server via Internet,
Intranet, LAN, WAN, satellite, telephone, or other communication
channels or interface devices.
[0053] As discussed above, some non-limiting examples of
information the system of the present invention may use to
determine if the player meets jurisdictional requirements include,
but are not limited to, (a) the IP address from which the account
request originated, (b) the ID of the player device from which the
account request was sent, (c) the system's internal database or
history, and (d) reverse email directories. The player's Media
Access Control (MAC) address or device serial number may also be
used. Additionally, existing databases that indicate in which
country a computer was purchased may be used to help screen out
ineligible players located in ineligible jurisdictions. Similarly,
the serial number of player devices may be requested as part of the
new player application process and may be obtained independently
during the screening of the application. The device serial number
may be looked up in a database to verify location, and can also be
used to identify stolen player identifications. If these criteria
are verified, the system of the present invention applies the
applicable jurisdictional rules (512) and allows play (514). If any
of the screening process shown in FIG. 5 is found in the negative
(i.e., "NO"), or if these criteria are not verified, the system of
the present invention denies play (516) and logs the reason for
disallowance. The number and order of steps shown, and the factors
used to determine jurisdictional eligibility in FIG. 5 are
exemplary only, and not intended to be limited to the embodiment
shown.
[0054] Business Rules
[0055] FIG. 6 shows an example of business rules used to screen
players in accordance with the present invention. The exemplary
rules shown may be applied to new players or existing players. Each
rule may be weighted to indicate its relevant weight in reference
to other business rules. The weighting may also be based on whether
it is calculated in real time, and/or based on the age of
information. In the embodiment shown, the business rules are
assigned a relative weight of 1-5. These weightings are exemplary
only and not intended to be a limiting feature. Other business
rules may be used to examine the aggregate results of other
business rules to make a determination, and business rules may be
nested. In the example with nested rules, only the final outcome
for the outermost rule may be evaluated for simplicity.
[0056] As shown in FIG. 6, the business rules used to determine
player eligibility are given the greatest weight because they tend
to be absolutes. For example, if a player must be 21 years old to
be eligible within a certain jurisdiction, one eligibility business
rule would state that the age must be greater than or equal to 21
years, and the rating of the age information available for the
player be greater than X. Another example of a business rule might
involve a comparison of a certain piece of data to a range of data
values observed in other players. For example, if a player requests
one or more additional sessions, and the total time played since
signing on is greater than 95% (or X number of standard deviations
from the mean) of the times observed by all other players in the
last three months, this may indicate the player is using a computer
program for play, or multiple people are playing on the account.
This may be undesirable behavior that could be taken into account
during screening.
[0057] In the embodiment shown in FIG. 6, a TRUE value is assigned
if the data meets the criteria of the rule and a FALSE if it does
not. A base score may be generated between 0 and 1 that can be
interpreted similarly to a statistical confidence level and
compared to a set threshold. For example, a base score of 0.95 may
be set to represent a 95% confidence that a player should not be
allowed to utilize the services. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 6,
all business rules in the "Reject" category (602) are given a base
score of 1 for a TRUE result (i.e., data meets the rule criteria)
and a 0 for a FALSE result (i.e., data does not meet the rule
criteria). TRUE values in all other categories may be looked at in
light of other factors before a request is rejected. For other
business rules, the base score may be adjusted up or down. For
example, business rules in the "Suspicious" category (604) may be
given a base score of 0.90 for a TRUE outcome, and a zero for a
FALSE outcome, with similar modifications for data accuracy rating
as in the "Reject" category. All business rules in the "Negative
Influence" category (606) may be given a 0.5 base score for a TRUE
outcome and a zero for a FALSE outcome. Base scores may be adjusted
for the data accuracy rating, and the base score may be adjusted up
or down for a given rule. If the score assigned for any business
rule is 1, a base score of 1.0 is returned by the business rule
step. Otherwise, the base score returned by this step may be the
average, weighted average (e.g., score multiplied by the business
rule weighting value) or other method for summarizing base scores
ranging in value from 0 to 1. In the example shown, no base score
is assigned for rules in the "Synthetic" or "Informational"
categories (608, 610).
[0058] In an alternative embodiment, a base score may be modified
based on the estimated accuracy of the data. For example, the base
score may optionally be modified by a data accuracy deduction. The
amount of the deduction may vary based on the weighting of the
business rule used to produce the base score. For example, no
deduction is be made for base scores resulting from business rules
with a 5 weighting. As another example, a deduction of 0.05 may be
deducted from a base score calculated from a business rule with a 4
weighting, 0.1 for a business rule with a 3 weighting, 0.15 for a
business rule with a 2 weighting, and 0.2 for a business rule with
a 1 rating. If the available data is considered unreliable, the
base score may be discarded without regard to its business rule
weighting.
[0059] Feedback-Based Statistical Modeling
[0060] In various exemplary embodiments, once a base score is
generated using business rules, it may be refined using predictive
statistical modeling. In one embodiment, computational algorithms
may be utilized to calculate the likelihood of someone being
ineligible to receive a requested service, represented as a number
between 0 and 1. Non-limiting examples of the algorithms that may
be used include logistic multiple regression, neural networks,
Bayesian classification, variance analysis, and classification
trees. In other embodiments, one or more plurality of statistical
techniques for evaluating output from several algorithms (e.g.,
analysis of predicted versus actual outcomes; r-squared and
Durbin-Watson scores) may be utilized alone or in combination,
selecting the output of the best algorithm.
[0061] In another embodiment, statistical models may utilize
historical data (independent variables) in conjunction with actual
known outcomes (dependent variables) to train the model and
evaluate its effectiveness at predicting results where the outcome
is unknown or unexpected. This is referred to as "teaching the
model" and is sometimes referred to as an adaptive algorithm. The
predictive power of statistical models may be improved by updating
the training data utilized to build the predictive model, thereby
obtaining new results. An example of how to achieve this is to
incorporate a feedback loop in the calculations. As errors are
identified, corrected data may be made available to the modeling
process. For example, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the data
obtained from manual screening is input into a model feedback
process.
[0062] In yet another embodiment, several models may be employed
based on their effectiveness at predicting various outcomes for
given service requests given the available data about the player.
As more data is available, this modeling step can become quite
complex. The trained model provides rules or equations that are
used to calculate the likelihood that a player is ineligible at
that moment in time, based on the available data. A score of 0.95,
for instance, would indicate a 95% confidence that this player is
ineligible for the requested service. The results of all models are
summarized into a single score using a weighted average. Weights
may be assigned by the end user based on experience, or by the
statistical evaluators mentioned above, or a combination of
both.
[0063] The Composite Score
[0064] FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an exemplary embodiment of the
invention using a composite score to determine eligibility in
accordance with the present invention. The composite score in
accordance with the present invention incorporates statistical
modeling, enabling automatic evaluation of many more factors than
simple business rules (e.g., rate of past play, numbers of games
played, value of the residence according to public records, etc.).
The composite score may incorporate and identify relevant factors
previously unknown to those creating the business rules, and
provides an evaluation of the risk of providing service, rather
than simply evaluating whether a player is eligible. In addition,
the exemplary embodiment of the present invention may use
statistical modeling to factor in the relevance of missing
documents or information. Also, rather than having two
possibilities (e.g., eligible or ineligible), the composite score
allows for finer granularity in player classification. For example,
a player may be restricted to a particular play methodology (rules)
and strategy or provided strategic coaching rather than simply
denying service to the player. Such player classifications are
exemplary only and not limited to those discussed.
[0065] In the embodiment shown in FIG. 7A, the composite score is
calculated using one or more of (a) a summarized score returned by
the business rule evaluation, (b) a summarized score returned by
the best performing statistical model or models, and (c)
statistical evaluators for the statistical models used for scores.
For example, a new player requests access for the first time or an
existing player requests to start a new session (702). Next, the
system generates at least one base score using business rules
(704). Next, the system generates at least one composite score
using statistical modeling (706). The composite score may
optionally be displayed with a background report with information
on the factors and information used to calculate the composite
score (708). The system then determines whether the composite score
is acceptable (710). If the score is acceptable play is allowed
(712). If the score is not acceptable, it is flagged for manual
screening (714).
[0066] In another embodiment, the output may be the average of the
business rule and statistical modeling score, though some
embodiments may utilize different weighting for each modeling
score. In some cases, the weight given to the statistical modeling
score may be a function of the statistical evaluators calculated
for the underlying model or models. The weights given to the
individual components may also be a function of other automated
analysis. For example, other statistical models or variables may be
utilized. In other embodiments, multiple composite scores are
generated for a single player, with different composite scores
generated if, for example, the player elects to play by a certain
strategy, only bet in certain ways, or changes some other criteria.
Composite score calculations may be performed at any time.
[0067] The composite score may also be used to determine whether to
take one or more actions (e.g., whether to allow or disallow play,
or allow play but only under certain conditions) based on whether
the score is within a particular range. For example, if the
composite score is below a certain range, the player is allowed to
play any available game. If the composite score is above one range,
but below another, the player is allowed to play only certain
games, or only play according to one or more set strategies. If the
composite score is above another range, the player is denied
service.
[0068] In another embodiment, a player may be eligible for a gaming
opportunity if the composite score is within a first range, but
ineligible if the composite score is within a second range. If the
composite score is above a first threshold but below a second
threshold, the player is conditionally eligible for a gaming
opportunity. For example, as shown in FIG. 7B, if the composite
score is in a range at or below threshold A (722), the player is
automatically allowed to receive the services requested. If the
composite score is in a range above threshold A but below threshold
B (724), the data is provided to an end user for manual
verification prior to providing the service. If the composite score
is above threshold B (726), the player is ineligible. The values of
thresholds A and B is adjustable and may be adjusted by a system
administrator or a gaming facility representative, for example.
[0069] The composite score of the present invention has several
advantages over conventional processes used in the gambling
industry today. By using a composite score, business rule
processing may be automated. By weighting the business rules,
consideration may be given to more subjective factors (such as
whether the player is a high roller). Additionally, the composite
score may also be used for regulatory compliance or for
implementing company policies. Rules used for regulatory compliance
or for implementing company policies are typically absolute rules.
For example, a player must be over 21, located outside of the
United States, or have a balance greater than X on the account. If
any one of the regulatory conditions is not met, service may be
denied.
[0070] The Cost of Annoyance
[0071] FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that calculates a
cost of annoyance in accordance with the present invention. A cost
of annoyance is calculated if a player's composite score indicates
the player is ineligible to play the requested game. In the
embodiment shown in FIG. 8, the system receives the composite score
(802) and establishes that the player meets jurisdictional
eligibility requirements for play (804). The system then checks the
player's credit rating (806). The credit rating check uses
traditional metrics known to those skilled in the art in the credit
industry, and may also include metrics such as past player history
at participating establishments. If the credit rating is sufficient
to play the requested game, play is allowed (808). If the credit
rating is insufficient to play the requested game, the system
calculates the cost of annoyance (810) in accordance with the
following equation:
COA=b(1-c)-a(d)
where b is the potential revenue, (1-c) is the probability the
player will not leave, a is the cost of allowing a player to play,
and d is the probability the player is ineligible. In another
embodiment, the cost of a false positive is calculated by
multiplying the cost of allowing an ineligible player to play by
the probability that the player is ineligible.
[0072] The system then checks to see if the cost of annoyance is
above an approval threshold F (812). If the cost of annoyance is
above approval threshold F, play is allowed (808). If the cost of
annoyance is below approval threshold F but above a rejection
threshold E, a manual review is performed (814). An example of a
manual review is provided in the explanation above for the
embodiment shown in FIG. 4. If the player passes the manual review,
play is allowed (808). If the cost of annoyance is below threshold
E, or if the player fails manual review, play is disallowed (816).
The value of thresholds E and F may be adjustable.
[0073] In accordance with the present invention, the cost of
annoyance indicates whether it may be profitable to override the
composite score and allow a player to play a requested game even if
the player's composite score indicates the player is ineligible.
For example, even if the player has a poor composite score because
of a low credit rating or a history of failing to pay, that player
may still bring in many players that generate revenue. While the
player's profile may indicate that the player is ineligible for a
$5,000 line of credit, for example, that player may have previously
attracted other players who generated $50,000 of revenue for the
gaming facility, for example. Therefore, in this exemplary
scenario, even though the player's composite score indicates that
the player should be denied service, it would still be profitable
to allow that player to play.
[0074] In certain embodiments, the cost of annoyance may be
calculated when the player's composite score is within a particular
range. For example, if the composite score is above a threshold C
but below a threshold D, the system calculates a cost of annoyance.
If the cost of annoyance is within a range X, the player is allowed
to play. If the cost of annoyance is within a range Y, then service
may be denied. If the cost of annoyance is between X and Y, the
player may be manually screened for eligibility. The value of
thresholds C, D, X, and Y may be adjustable.
[0075] A gaming facility may measure player value by calculating
how much revenue the player brought into the establishment in the
past and estimating the player's potential value in the future
(sometimes referred to as estimated "lifetime value"). Where the
gaming facility has a statistical house advantage (i.e., over the
long run, a gaming facility is statistically expected to keep a
certain percentage of all amounts bet), a player's value is usually
measured in terms of a theoretical win (the amount wagered on each
type of game played times what the gaming facility is statistically
expected to win on the particular game times the number of times an
average player plays the game). Where a gaming facility collects
only a service charge per game, the individual player's
contribution to this charge is used as the theoretical win. Costs
such as premiums given to attract the player to play may be
deducted from the player's estimated lifetime value.
[0076] The cost of allowing the player to play is based on whether
there is any record of fines received or levied as a result of that
player, any uncollectible debt already lost to the player, and any
history of complaints against the player. The cost of not allowing
the player to play is based on revenues that would be lost from
refusing to allow the player to play, calculated from average
revenues previously received from the player, estimated revenues
that would be received in the future if the player were allowed to
play (calculated using the average transactions times the frequency
times the number of transactions in a period), and the estimated
loss of future additional players referred, based on the number of
previous referrals received from the player. Other factors may
include the player's line of credit, the number of bad checks
written, any outstanding credit balance, how often the player
visits, the player's location, and the number of times the player
has visited the gaming facility.
[0077] Synthetic False Outcomes
[0078] During the screening process, the screening algorithms may
produce two types of errors: (a) false positive and (b) false
negative results. A false positive occurs when an eligibility
algorithm classifies an ineligible player as eligible. A false
negative occurs when an eligibility algorithm classifies an
eligible player as ineligible. These errors may result due to
faulty inputs or criteria used during the screening process.
Calculating a cost of annoyance in accordance with the present
invention mediates the risk of false positive scores that allow an
ineligible player to play and false negative scores that prevent an
eligible player from playing.
[0079] The cost of a false positive (i.e., erroneously allowing a
player to play) is relatively simple to calculate because the
reasons for denying services to a player are usually clear. For
example, if the false positive results in allowing a player with a
poor credit rating or an insufficient account balance to play, the
gaming facility may have to cover the player's losses. The cost and
the risk involved of a false negative (erroneously denying service
to an eligible player) may be more difficult to determine. If a
gaming facility denies service to an eligible player, the player
may become annoyed and take business elsewhere. Not only would the
gaming facility then lose the revenue associated with that
particular transaction, it would lose revenue from future
transactions from the player, and possibly from others to whom the
player relates the experience.
[0080] Another category of false positive and false negative
conditions occurs when the algorithm produces the correct results
(the composite score accurately reflects the risk based on the
available inputs), but additional factors were not taken into
consideration that may have generated a different result. This is
called a synthetic false outcome. A synthetic false outcome may be
either a synthetic false positive, or a synthetic false negative.
In accordance with the present invention, manual reviews may be
used to provide feedback to the model as it is a reliable means of
identifying synthetic false positives or synthetic false negatives
produced by the automated screening processes.
[0081] A synthetic false positive occurs when a player is
rightfully denied play based on the player's composite score, but
whose play is still desirable to the gaming facility. Conversely,
for example, a synthetic false negative occurs when a player is
rightfully allowed play based on the composite score, but whose
play is undesirable to the gaming facility. The cost of the false
negative is calculated by multiplying the cost of denying an
eligible player from playing by the probability that the player is
eligible. The cost of denying an eligible player from playing is
calculated by averaging the revenue earned from the player in
previous gaming sessions. The cost of allowing the player to play
is the maximum potential loss to the gaming establishment for the
gaming activity requested by the player. If the player is a new
player, calculations may be performed using data from one or more
profiles of established accounts of players with player data
similar to the new player.
[0082] Play on an Existing Account
[0083] FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary embodiment for gaining
access to the gaming system in accordance with the present
invention. As shown in FIG. 9, a player enters a gaming facility
(902) and decides to play online (904). The player accesses a
terminal to sign on to the system. A terminal is any device that
can be used to access the desired game or service. The system of
the present invention checks to see if the player already has an
account (906). If the player does not, the player is asked to
submit an application for a new account (908). A non-limiting
example of a procedure for submitting an application for a new
account is described above for the embodiment shown in FIG. 2. If
the player has an existing account, the player is signed on to the
system (910). Once the player signs on, the player account is
checked to determine whether it passes one or more screening
algorithms (912). The number and type of algorithms used may vary
from establishment to establishment. Non-limiting examples include
jurisdictional algorithms, credit check algorithms, and the cost of
annoyance algorithm. The player could also be screened for a
history of use of impermissible playing methodologies, past
inappropriate public behavior, and whether the player is listed on
any regulatory or exclusion list. If the player account passes the
screening algorithms, the transaction is allowed (914).
[0084] Even if the account fails one of more of the screening
algorithms, the transaction may still be allowed. If the
application fails to meet one or more of the screening algorithms,
the player is offered a manual transaction review (916). If the
player refuses a manual review, the transaction is refused. If the
player accepts, the transaction is manually reviewed (918). If the
transaction fails the manual review, the transaction is denied
(920). If, however, the transaction passes manual review, the
transaction is allowed (914). An example of a manual screening
process is described above for the embodiment shown in FIG. 4.
[0085] FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary embodiment for verifying
the eligibility of a player wishing to participate in a game in
accordance with the present invention. In this embodiment, players
are screened for eligibility and the cost of annoyance. When a
player with an existing account signs on to the system (1002), the
account is checked for valid entries (1004). Examples of what
constitute a valid entry are discussed above for the embodiment
shown in FIG. 2. If the account is for a valid player, the player
is allowed to select from available game options (1006). If the
player is not a valid player, the transaction is rejected (1008).
In other embodiments, if the player is not a valid player, the
system may invite the player to complete an application for a new
account.
[0086] Once a valid player selects an available game option, the
transaction is screened by one or more applicable eligibility
algorithms (1010). Eligibility algorithms may include but are not
limited to jurisdictional eligibility and credit eligibility. Other
algorithms may be used and may vary from gaming facility to gaming
facility. If the player is eligible, the transaction may then be
screened by a cost of annoyance algorithm (1012). An example of the
cost of annoyance algorithm is described above for the embodiment
shown in FIG. 8. If the transaction passes the annoyance algorithm
screening, the transaction is checked for compliance with house
rules (1014). Non-limiting examples of house rules include player
skill level, use of playing methodologies prohibited by the house,
or a minimum cost of annoyance score. Other house rules may be
used, and may vary from gaming facility to gaming facility.
[0087] If the transaction passes all criteria, the account is
accepted (1016). If the transaction fails to meet one or more
criteria (e.g., the eligibility or annoyance criteria), the
transaction may be manually reviewed (1018). If the player refuses
a manual review, the transaction is rejected (1008). An example of
the manual review process is discussed above for the embodiment
shown in FIG. 4. If the transaction fails the manual review, the
transaction is rejected (1008). If the transaction passes manual
review, the house chooses whether to accept or reject the
transaction (1020). Optionally, the manually screened transaction
may be placed back into the screening process at the annoyance
algorithm section prior to a final decision on whether to accept
the transaction.
[0088] Enforced Strategy and Player Monitoring
[0089] FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention allowing a player to "bank" a game. A player banking a
game is called a "player banker." In the embodiment shown, the
player requests entry into the system (1102). Entry is granted
through a verification process (1104). In the verification process
the player account is screened and a cost of annoyance is
calculated. If the account meets screening and cost of annoyance
criteria, the player is granted entry into the game ("seated")
(1106). Once seated, the player waits for a sufficient number of
players wishing to play. Next, the system of the present invention
checks to see if players are satisfied with individual bankrolls
(1108). If the players are satisfied with all individual bankrolls,
play begins (1110). If the players are not satisfied with all
individual player bankrolls, the system of the present invention
checks to see if a player is willing to bankroll the game (1112).
If a player is willing to bankroll the game (i.e., be a player
banker), the player selects an authorized player banker strategy
(1114). Once the player selects an authorized strategy, play
continues with the player acting as a player banker (1116). If no
player is willing to bankroll the game, players may choose to play
without a player banker (1118).
[0090] Player bankers are customarily used in jurisdictions where
gaming facilities are not able to act as the "house" (i.e., gaming
facilities do not collect lost wagers and pay winning wagers but
instead collect service fees from players for each game played). In
these jurisdictions, one or more of the players must ensure there
is enough money to cover all winning bets). For instance, blackjack
requires a bank because the players play against the house, as
opposed to poker where players play against each other. Sometimes,
none of the players acting as the house have enough money to cover
a game where every player wins their wager. This usually means that
the other players therefore bet less than they desire. To avoid
this, in some jurisdictions third party entities with enough money
to cover all player wins enter games for the purpose of being the
banker. Third party entities typically hire a player, give the
hired player enough money to cover all bets, and instruct the
player to play using a fixed strategy that gives the player a
traditional house advantage. In blackjack, for example, this may
mean that the player banker is required to hit on sixteen or below,
and stay on seventeen or above.
[0091] Traditionally, a problem exists where player bankers and
dealers may reduce profits, break regulations, or even steal
because it is difficult to monitor their actual play. Without a way
to monitor play, it can be difficult to manage a hired player
banker because there is no adequate way to manage the strategy
played or his or her claims as to how much they have won or lost.
Accordingly, player bankers and/or dealers are required to play in
strict accordance with a particular strategy. The strategy used may
be any strategy known to those skilled in the art. Strategies may
range from the use of one or more probability charts (e.g., the
probability of obtaining a given hand in a card game) to more
subjective decisions (e.g., how much to bet based on your
opponents' remaining chips). The more well known strategies are
found in "Hoyle" or "According to Hoyle" publications. These
publications provide card game rules and strategies for hundreds of
games.
[0092] In accordance with the present invention, one or more
strategies may be incorporated into the system and used to enforce
a particular strategy or provide coaching tips based on one or more
selected strategies. In one exemplary embodiment, the strategy
enforced or the coaching tips provided may be based on one or more
of a player's composite scores. In another embodiment, strategies
may be enforced or coaching provided as a player approaches
regulatory loss limits. In yet another embodiment, if a player opts
to be the banker, the system of the present invention forces the
player banker to play in a predictable way. The player banker
therefore selects the desired automated house rules with which to
play. This could be by Hoyle's rules, rules designated by an
employer, industry regulations, or one or more of the strategies
previously discussed. A non-limiting example of a play strategy is
in blackjack where the dealer is often required to take another
card on sixteen or less and hold on seventeen or more. In other
embodiments of the present invention, the player banker plays
according to one or more modeling strategies or according to a
specific profile.
[0093] FIG. 11 shows an exemplary embodiment where the player
banker identified in the screening process plays according to a
specific strategy in accordance with the present invention. The
system of the present invention then ensures that the player plays
according to the strategy. As an example of how these rules may be
enforced, if a player banker in a game of blackjack attempts to hit
on a seventeen or higher, the system of the present invention may
prohibit the player banker from doing so. Conversely, if the player
banker tries to hold on a sixteen or less, the system of the
present invention would require that player to draw another card.
The system of the present invention would monitor those players and
not allow them to play in a way that violates their eligibility
criteria.
[0094] This player banker scenario is but one example of how an
enforced strategy may be employed in accordance with the present
invention. Another example is that a particular player is
identified as a novice compared to the others "seated" at the
table. An enforced strategy in accordance with the present
invention may be imposed on the novice player to improve the
player's odds for a particular game. Yet another example of the use
of an enforced strategy in accordance with the present invention is
where a jurisdiction limits the amount of money that may be lost
during a particular period, the player voluntarily asks for such a
restriction, or the gaming facility opts to limit play based on the
credit rating or other factors. In other instances, the player may
only be allowed to play certain games, or only play for a limited
time. In those instances, the system may be alerted when a player
identified in one of these example categories violates a strategy,
and use methods to enforce the strategy, up to up to and including
requiring the player to quit or cash out.
[0095] Player Coaching
[0096] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention that provides coaching tips to players. In the embodiment
shown, a valid and eligible player selects a game (1202). The
player selects automated coaching options from a list of available
profiles (1204). The player then enters the selected automated
coaching parameters (1206). The player then plays the game while
receiving coaching from the selected automated coach (1208).
[0097] Player coaching is a more flexible version of the enforced
strategy described in the embodiment shown in FIG. 11. However,
rather than requiring play according to one or more strategies,
coaching tips or suggestions on how to play according to the one or
more strategies are provided to the player. The player is not
required to play according to the tips or coaching provided.
Coaching may be given based on a player's composite score. For
example, if the score falls below a certain range, coaching may be
available to the player. Coaching may also be provided if the
player has less than a predetermined credit rating. Coaching is
similar to the enforced strategy method used on player bankers,
except that coaching is a suggested strategy instead of a required
strategy. Coaching may also involve providing the player with
information to assist in play. In other embodiments, coaching may
be made available as a player approaches regulatory loss limits.
Coaching tips may also be used to make the player "smarter." For
instance, if a player is below a predetermined level of playing
experience, the player may find it beneficial to know the chances
for being dealt a particular hand based on what has already
happened during the game. For example, in blackjack, the player may
be coached to hold on a seventeen or higher, and to hit on a
sixteen or lower. Players may also receive coaching tips on the
odds of drawing a desired card during a game, or of the odds of
another player having a better hand. Such tips are exemplary only,
and not limited to what is mentioned. Other coaching tips could be
based on Hoyle's rules, or other coaching aids known to those
skilled in the art.
[0098] Coaching may be made available using computer assisted
prompts, by providing the odds of success playing a particular
hand, or by providing hints based on one or more playing aids or
playing strategies known to those skilled in the art. As a
non-limiting example, hints can be packaged up as hints from
personalities. For instance, a likeness of a poker celebrity's face
may come up and say in a draw poker game, "Well, you have a pair of
twos in your hand and an ace. If you draw two cards you have a
chance."
[0099] Automated Play
[0100] FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that determines
whether a player is eligible for automated play in accordance with
the present invention. In the embodiment shown, the player accesses
a gaming site (1302) and the system of the present invention checks
to see if the player is an established player (1304). If the player
is not an established player, the player completes an account
application (1306). If the player is an established player, the
player completes the login form (1308).
[0101] Once the player logs in, the player account passes through
an automated screening process to determine whether the account
passes one or more automated screening algorithms (1310). Screening
algorithms may vary between gaming establishments. Non-limiting
examples include business rule algorithms, statistical modeling
algorithms, jurisdictional algorithms, credit check algorithms, and
the cost of annoyance algorithm. The cost of annoyance may be used
to screen for the use of impermissible playing methodologies, and
may be used to screen for a player's ability to generate revenue
for the gaming facility in spite of one or more negative scores.
Other variables, such as a player's ability to bring in famous
players, may also be considered. If the player account passes the
screening algorithms, the player enters a virtual "lobby." From
here, the player may select various gaming opportunities. For
purposes of example only, the player selects automated play
(1312).
[0102] If the player account fails to meet one or more of the
screening algorithms, the player account is manually screened
(1314). An example of manual screening is discussed above for the
embodiment shown in FIG. 4. If the transaction fails the manual
screening, service is denied and the player is provided an
explanation for the rejection (1316). If the player account passes
manual screening, the player enters the virtual "lobby" and, for
the purposes of this example, selects a game to play in an
automated play mode (1312).
[0103] Once the player selects automated play, the system of the
present invention determines whether the player is eligible (and
under what conditions, if any) to participate in automated play
(1318). In this example, the system of the present invention checks
to see if the player possesses the required experience level of
experience for the game. Player experience may be calculated based
all or in part on player age, the number of that type of game the
player has previously played, the total or average player winnings
or losses in a given time period, and the average skill level
rating of games the player has a history of playing. These factors
may be weighted, or used in combination. If the player qualifies,
automated play is allowed (1320).
[0104] These factors are exemplary only, and others may be used
without departing from the scope of the embodiment shown. For
example, player classification may be changed after the player wins
or loses a certain number of games and may be automatically or
manually updated by the system. In another embodiment, the
experience level required to play a particular game is compared to
the average experience level of players already in the game. In yet
another embodiment, a player may request a change in player
classification. In other embodiments, a player's composite score
may be used to determine eligibility for automated play. In another
embodiment, the cost of annoyance may be used, and an override
score may be calculated to determine whether play should be allowed
even if the player fails to meet screening criteria.
[0105] FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an eligible
player playing in an automated play mode in accordance with the
present invention. Once a player is determined to be eligible for
automated play, the player may enter the desired parameters and
play in the automated play mode. In this embodiment, the eligible
player selects from an option of games available for automated play
(1402). The player then selects from a list of available automated
play strategies (1404). The player then enters the selected
automated play parameters (1406). Next the player selects one or
more game options from a list of options available to the player
(1408). In the example embodiment shown, the list of available game
options depends upon a player's composite score or other
eligibility criteria. If the eligibility processes place a player
in the proper category, he or she may choose from a list of
available strategies (e.g., use standard house rules for
blackjack--hit on 16, stay on 17) put in parameters to govern the
play (e.g., average bet, buy-in, how many games to play, minimum
and maximum bankroll to end play) and the game software plays the
game according to this parameter (1410). In certain embodiments,
the player may choose to participate in several games at once. The
player may allow play to continue unmonitored, or the player may
monitor the game. The player may elect to play a certain number of
hands, to play until a certain amount is won or lost, or some other
criteria chosen by the player and/or the system. Although the
exemplary embodiments described herein may be described in
reference to specific games, other gaming scenarios are also
possible. For example, the invention is equally applicable to other
card games, such as pai gow, and blackjack. Automated play may be
used in other games as well.
[0106] Although several embodiments of the present invention and
its advantages have been described in detail, it will be apparent
to those skilled in the art that various modifications and
variations can be made in the system and method of the present
invention without departing from the spirit or scope of the
invention. Thus, it is intended that the present invention cover
the modifications and variations of this invention provided they
come within the scope of the appended claims and their
equivalents.
* * * * *